Literal Genesis requires incest and would have created a threatened species

[Fascinated With God]

I'll just say that just because someone is deceived about God's creation doesn't mean God deceived them. Likewise, just because you are insulted, doesn't mean anyone actually insulted you. I'm simply encouraging you to trust God's word.

I do trust God's word and it is extremely arrogant of you to claim otherwise. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't trust God. That is nothing less than religious bigotry.

For your part, you do not trust God's creation. You insist on warping it into something that is not supported by any evidence, because you have a fanatical interpretation of the Bible that won't allow you to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts your theory on how the universe was created.

 

[mathetes123]

A fatal mutation initially effects a single individual, not an entire group, so it there is no chance of it wiping out an entire population.

If a mutation only affects a single individual, then how can mutations be used to evolve one species to another?

 

[Fascinated With God]

Bad mutations die off quickly. Good mutations spread rapidly.

 

[mathetes123]

Bad mutations die off quickly. Good mutations spread rapidly.

Do mutations create information?

What are the statistics on the number of destructive mutations per single beneficial mutation?

 

[mathetes123]

I do trust God's word and it is extremely arrogant of you to claim otherwise. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't trust God. That is nothing less than religious bigotry.

For your part, you do not trust God's creation. You insist on warping it into something that is not supported by any evidence, because you have a fanatical interpretation of the Bible that won't allow you to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts your theory on how the universe was created.

So the traditional straightforward interpretation of genesis is now fanatical?

 

[Fascinated With God]

Do mutations create information?

If they are beneficial they do.

What are the statistics on the number of destructive mutations per single beneficial mutation?

I don't think there is any way to objectively measure that.

 

[Fascinated With God]

So the traditional straightforward interpretation of genesis is now fanatical?

Your counter point is that I supposedly don't trust God's word if I fail to believe that the universe is a grand cosmic deception. There is nothing straightforward about believing that God created a massive deception when he created the universe. So yes, I think that believing that God lied to us though the manner in which He created the universe, is a fanatical conception of a deceptive deity.

 

[mathetes123]

If they are beneficial they do.

I don't think there is any way to objectively measure that.

Only intelligence creates information which is needed for evolution.

The number of destructive mutations far outweigh the number of beneficial mutations and would tend to result in the extinction of the species before the improvement.

 

[mathetes123]

Your counter point is that I supposedly don't trust God's word if I fail to believe that the universe is a grand cosmic deception. There is nothing straightforward about believing that God created a massive deception when he created the universe. So yes, I think that believing that God lied to us though the manner in which He created the universe, is a fanatical conception of a deceptive deity.

Your incomplete understanding of Gods creation does not equate to His deception.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Only intelligence creates information which is needed for evolution.

You can do the same thing on a computer. Evolution simulations result in the build-up of information as a result of periodic random mutations. If it can be proven to happen in real time on a computer why can't it happen in the physical world?

The number of destructive mutations far outweigh the number of beneficial mutations and would tend to result in the extinction of the species before the improvement.

You don't understand, bad mutations effect one individual while good mutations spread to whole populations. It doesn't matter that there are far more bad mutations than good ones, the bad mutations take care of themselves while the good mutations are free to spread far and wide and effect extremely large groups, not just a single individual.

 

[mathetes123]

You can do the same thing on a computer. Evolution simulations result in the build-up of information as a result of periodic random mutations. If it can be proven to happen in real time on a computer why can't it happen in the physical world?

You don't understand, bad mutations effect one individual while good mutations spread to whole populations. It doesn't matter that there are far more bad mutations than good ones, the bad mutations take care of themselves while the good mutations are free to spread far and wide and effect extremely large groups, not just a single individual.

We don't have the knowledge to simulate Gods creation on a computer.

If good mutations can be passed to the next generation, so can bad mutations, which would have the net affect of countering any benefit of good mutations.

 

[Fascinated With God]

We don't have the knowledge to simulate Gods creation on a computer.

They aren't simulations of the entire universe, they are simulations of genetics in simple organisms. Are you claiming that unless the computer can simulate the entire universe that it is invalid? If so, that is a purely polemic argument.

If good mutations can be passed to the next generation, so can bad mutations, which would have the net affect of countering any benefit of good mutations.

Bad mutations have a strong tendency to be rooted out, for obvious reasons. Bad mutations that do not manifest until after breeding age are less likely to be root out, thus the large array of elderly diseases that have not been rooted out.

 

[Jig]

No.

While I understand that some changes in an entire population can occur over long periods of time (especially if a population becomes isolated from others of their same kind), I don't subscribe to the belief that these slight changes over millions of years eventually accumulate into the birth a new kind of organism altogether. Yes, variations in organisms is directly observable. However, common ancestry between diverse types of organisms must be assumed. Similarities in organisms only strongly imply common ancestry when coupled with the presupposition of ontological naturalism.

I say all this to get at the root problem here. Mutations are the Darwinianists only hope of generating new genetic information.

Since mutations occur in individuals that are already adapted to their environment, virtually all mutations represent corruptions to the genetic information. Mutations, even if they were deemed beneficial, actually represent a loss of information because their original sequence has been damaged. Any gain is offset by loss.

Again, since natural selection is the primary mechanism that promotes changes in the number of particular traits in a population, we run into the same problem. Natural selection is basically a weeding out process. It does not create anything new, it only selects from what is present already and does so by a process of elimination.

Therefore, the major factors that influence the frequency of genes and traits in a population do so primarily through negative effects - the loss of genetic information and a decrease in the variation within a population.

My contention (stemming from a plain reading of Genesis) is that God supernaturally created mature organisms (of various specific kinds) and included tremendous genetic diversity in these from the beginning. As such, I hold that rather than new types organisms coming into existence over time, we are actually observing, for the most part, a loss and extinction of types of organisms.

I see no problem with Adam and Eve being the sole ancestors of the entire human population.

 

[Juelrei]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

For example, cheetahs are consider a threatened species because of a population bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. This bottleneck is nowhere near as extreme as the one Creationists propose for humans just 6,000 years ago, and yet cheetahs are so closely related to one another that transplanted skin grafts do not provoke immune responses.

I suppose it's easy to ignore birth defects, because there wasn't any at the early timeline of mankind. Or would it be said.. "None recorded anyway." And was that a fault of Moses who scribed what God told him happened way back then? Or should we exercise some "healthy" skepticism against God's integrity?

As for the charge of incest, you're assuming that incest was actually practiced among the godly line. Or would you call that God's wink at sin?
If you think it's wrong, don't just shout how wrong it is, but come up with a better thing for the siblings of Adam and Eve to have done. Your moral outrage is misplaced and derived erroneously.

For the record, Incest as a viable sin is only so when there are plenty enough none relatives to use as a gene pool already. You will find that once their numbers grew large enough, your so called incest did not occur.

 

[SkyWriting]

Mutations aren't "defects". If anything, when breeding a very small population, you'd want a lot of mutations to increase genetic diversity and avoid pairing negative recessives.

Mutations are defects. Plain and simple.

You can look it up or I'll do it for you.

 

[SkyWriting]

You obviously didn't read anything past the first sentence of the OP. The second entence started, "Even ignoring the problem of birth defects". So what do you do, you focus exclusively on birth defects and completely ignore my actual assertion. Here it is again:
...when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

You are correct that I ignored your mild thoughts on disease. Disease is out of the question for the first few generations, if not the first millennia.

If you take the story at face value, then God's engineering did not include a shovel full of diseases dropped on top of all that He had made. That's silly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Starting from just a single breeding pair six thousand years ago, you could not possibly build up enough genetic diversity to account for the amount of genetic differences there are present in modern humans.

Domestic dogs are considered the most diverse species on the planet
and we did that ourselves in a few thousand years, so your argument fails.

http://www.xolo.com/dogblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/J-Hered-1999-Vil%C3%A0-71-7.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

Since mutations occur in individuals that are already adapted to their environment, virtually all mutations represent corruptions to the genetic information. Mutations, even if they were deemed beneficial, actually represent a loss of information because their original sequence has been damaged. Any gain is offset by loss.

Under the Evo line of assumptions, the entire code is nothing but mutations off of some imaginary beginning. One bit of code somehow picked up another and the DNA snowball got started. So every "mutation" is a possible piece of gold in their system of mutating perfection.

So you won't get anywhere with the loss of information theory. It's just one big golden garbage can to them.

 

[Aman777]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

Dear Fascinated, Genesis 6:4 shows that incest did not happen in Scripture. The diversity in the species happens when the sons of God (Prehistoric people) whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day, married and produced offspring with the daughters of men (Adam).

This explains where Cain's wife came from on the first earth, and where Noah's grandsons got their wives on our earth. The offspring between these two are "giants" intellectually, since they have inherited the superior intelligence of Adam.

This also explains why we have the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve AND the human intelligence of Adam on this earth. Noah's grandsons married and produced today's humans with the prehistoric people on this earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Dear Fascinated, Genesis 6:4 shows that incest did not happen in Scripture. The diversity in the species happens when the sons of God (Prehistoric people) whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day, married and produced offspring with the daughters of men (Adam). This explains where Cain's wife came from on the first earth, and where Noah's grandsons got their wives on our earth. The offspring between these two are "giants" intellectually, since they have inherited the superior intelligence of Adam.This also explains why we have the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve AND the human intelligence of Adam on this earth. Noah's grandsons married and produced today's humans with the prehistoric people on this earth.

It's true that one can skew things around and get to that conclusion. But the scriptures were not written to be a puzzle. People were very very tribal in those days and if that had happened, the stories would be loud and clear about cross-pollination. And I doubt they'd be peaceful stories like black sheep mating with white sheep.